this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
1354 points (98.6% liked)
memes
9861 readers
3050 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Both are practically infinite, or well, the question doesn't really make sense.
Reality isn't rasterized, so there's no resolution. You just have light waves bouncing off of things and into your eyes. They can hit at all kinds of angles and positions, and your brain will interpret different impact frequency distributions as some color or brightness you see in a certain position.
And you don't have a shutter in your eyes or something else that would isolate individual frames. Light waves just arrive whenever they do and your brain updates its interpreted image continuously.
So, in principle, you can increase the resolution and display rate of a screen to infinity and you'd still perceive it differently (even if it's not noticeable enough to point it out).
The cost just goes up ever more and the returns diminish, so the question rather has to be, whether it's worth your money (and whether you want to sink that much money into entertainment in the first place).